Thank you to the Unions

[Freo2012]

strong unionism is critical to a harmonious community and economy. Even the most extreme capitalist with a little knowledge knows this. A legitimate long term economy needs everyone to feel they are getting a reasonably fair deal in life, and the only way is through reasonably strong unionism - it benefits everyone.

Not having strong unions leads to total oppression of the majority of population and ultimately break down in society, ie revolution. Just look at history.

 

[GuruJane]

Yes, unions are very good at a lot of things.

I speak as one who was a union witness, many years ago, at an arbitration hearing for a landmark award of 3 months unpaid maternity leave. This woulda been early 1970s.

We won, and all maternity leave decisions ever since have been off the back of that decision. My erstwhile employer blackballed me fwiw.

Jiska's story is a great example of why the ACTU and all Labor people should be backing in Abbott's PPL instead of making idiots of themselves opposing it.

 

[little graham]

Y

Jiska's story is a great example of why the ACTU and all Labor people should be backing in Abbott's PPL instead of making idiots of themselves opposing it.

While pensions, health, education, science are being cut, we're suppose to support maternity leave paid by taxpayers to families earning of hundreds of thousands of dollars?

There is an idiot here, it aint those opposing robbing the poor to give to the rich.

 

[mottrain]

While pensions, health, education, science are being cut, we're suppose to support maternity leave paid by taxpayers to families earning of hundreds of thousands of dollars?

There is an idiot here, it aint those opposing robbing the poor to give to the rich.

Doesn't the ppl apply regardless of income???

 

[GuruJane]

While pensions, health, education, science are being cut, we're suppose to support maternity leave paid by taxpayers to families earning of hundreds of thousands of dollars?

There is an idiot here, it aint those opposing robbing the poor to give to the rich.

Clearly you are ignorant as to how the PPL will be paid for and financed. You are also ignorant as to which cohort of women will benefit most from PPL.

 

[Lebbo73]

Probably better put than my previous post.

I don't want to sound elitist or judgemental because that's not my aim, but it's important that white collar workers have children to replace them. Generally those families that can afford to live off one income are blue collar workers. While clearly we need both, and neither is in any way more important than the other, if you come to the conclusion, based on history, that the majority of children born to white collar families end up in white collar jobs, then if white collar workers stop having children because they can't afford to, the only way to fill those jobs is through immigration. And we all know the views of anti-unionists on immigration.

You would think with this view towards Paid Paternity Leave that Labor would back Tony Abbott's plan? Not that I am a fan of it.

 

[Jiska]

While pensions, health, education, science are being cut, we're suppose to support maternity leave paid by taxpayers to families earning of hundreds of thousands of dollars?

There is an idiot here, it aint those opposing robbing the poor to give to the rich.

You've completely missed the point and you're arguing against something we're not discussing; the governments paid parental leave scheme.

With reference to the OP and current discussion, unions work to create agreements where the employer pays, not the taxpayer. In the examples I gave, the business with a union paid the employee, (nothing claimed from the taxpayer), the business without a union paid nothing, instead referring the employee to claim Government minimum wage benefits (ie. creating a burden on the taxpayer).

Summary:
Union agreement, employer plays. Non-union agreement, taxpayer pays (in the examples given, we've established already that some businesses actually do the right thing)

 

[mottrain]

You've completely missed the point and you're arguing against something we're not discussing; the governments paid parental leave scheme.

With reference to the OP and current discussion, unions work to create agreements where the employer pays, not the taxpayer. In the examples I gave, the business with a union paid the employee, (nothing claimed from the taxpayer), the business without a union paid nothing, instead referring the employee to claim Government minimum wage benefits (ie. creating a burden on the taxpayer).

Summary:
Union agreement, employer plays. Non-union agreement, taxpayer pays (in the examples given, we've established already that some businesses actually do the right thing)

If you actually think unions do not lobby and negotiate with the government then you are out of touch.

 

[Jiska]

If you actually think unions do not lobby and negotiate with the government then you are out of touch.

Not sure how that's at all relevant, but thanks for the input.

 

[mottrain]

Not sure how that's at all relevant, but thanks for the input.

If it wasn't for laws unions wouldn't exist.

 

[Floor Pie]

If it wasn't for laws unions wouldn't exist.

Can you stop trying to turn this thread into the other existing threads?

 

[Jiska]

If it wasn't for laws unions wouldn't exist.

What a stupid statement. If it wasn't for laws just about nothing would exist.

 

[Power Raid]

I'd like to say a big thank you to the unions who have negotiated and fought for better working conditions for their members.

My pregnant wife works at a hospital and according to the union agreement is entitled to three months paid maturnity leave.

Thank Christ she doesn't work at a private business. If she happened to work at my workplace she'd get nothing except for 12 months unpaid leave, designated by law, topped up by taxpayers at the minimum wage for 3 months which would mean we couldn't meet our mortgage repayments. I feel grateful that the unions have fought to make her employer pay her for three months at full wage rather than living off the public purse at a minimum wage, effectively saving the taxpayer thousands of dollars.

Agree that this is a good benefit but this should not be paid for by the employer.

So a big f you to the unions.

If a large employer had to bare the cost it would work out fine. Having say 2000 workers they could bare the cost of 3 months pay and the added cost of hiring another or having 1999 workers covering.

A small employer of 3 doesn't have that luxury.

It is a shame people celebrate f ups as positives.

 

[Floor Pie]

Agree that this is a good benefit but this should not be paid for by the employer.

So a big f you to the unions.

If a large employer had to bare the cost it would work out fine. Having say 2000 workers they could bare the cost of 3 months pay and the added cost of hiring another or having 1999 workers covering.

A small employer of 3 doesn't have that luxury.

It is a shame people celebrate f ups as positives.

Ugh...

 

[Power Raid]

Ugh...

it is a disproportionate burden on small business and a big free kick to big business

 

[Jiska]

Agree that this is a good benefit but this should not be paid for by the employer.

Right. So you believe we should raise taxes and then the taxpayer should fit the bill? I thought you righties were all against Government handouts?

What do you do for a living Power Raid?

 

[Power Raid]

Right. So you believe we should raise taxes and then the taxpayer should fit the bill? I thought you righties were all against Government handouts?

What do you do for a living Power Raid?

It isn't about being left or right. it is about common sense.

why would you want to punish women?

why would you want to give big business a massive free kick?

 

[Floor Pie]

It isn't about being left or right. it is about common sense.

why would you want to punish women?

why would you want to give big business a massive free kick?

Ugh...

 

[Power Raid]

Ugh...

as per the explanation above this benefits big business over small business. given small business can't mitigate the risk through portfolio, they will simply have to hire men over women or pay women less.

thus it punishes women.


this is the problem of the give me free s**t and give me free s**t now brigade. policies like these are good and are important. that is why we need to get the policies right.

 

[Power Raid]

strong unionism is critical to a harmonious community and economy. Even the most extreme capitalist with a little knowledge knows this. A legitimate long term economy needs everyone to feel they are getting a reasonably fair deal in life, and the only way is through reasonably strong unionism - it benefits everyone.

Not having strong unions leads to total oppression of the majority of population and ultimately break down in society, ie revolution. Just look at history.

yep agree

unions have an extremely important role but unfortunately they need a big clean out. we need better unions who understand modern economies and are interested in their members, the unemployed and Australia rather than themselves.

 

[Floor Pie]

as per the explanation above this benefits big business over small business. given small business can't mitigate the risk through portfolio, they will simply have to hire men over women or pay women less.

thus it punishes women.


this is the problem of the give me free s**t and give me free s**t now brigade. policies like these are good and are important. that is why we need to get the policies right.

Jiska, bad news, your wife is being punished...

Your example and reasoning is a crock of s**t PR.

You "say f you to the unions" for ensuring a mother can take three months off to give birth to a child, keep her job, and be paid during it. Because of the tiny, tiny situation that a business running with 3 employees, might have one fall pregnant. And will not have any way to work around it...


And I've talked to you before about your stupid technique of pretending to be empathetic.
"Why do you want to punish women?"
Ugh... pathetic.

 

[GuruJane]

I'd like to say a big thank you to the unions who have negotiated and fought for better working conditions for their members.

My pregnant wife works at a hospital and according to the union agreement is entitled to three months paid maturnity leave.

Thank Christ she doesn't work at a private business. If she happened to work at my workplace she'd get nothing except for 12 months unpaid leave, designated by law, topped up by taxpayers at the minimum wage for 3 months which would mean we couldn't meet our mortgage repayments.

And not only that, she would have also lost her superannuation loading.

Power Raid is 100% right that the reason employer-paid maternity leave hasn't and won't become universal is because small businesses can't afford it.

I would expect that Abbott's PPL will be negotiated through the senate via PUP - almost certainly twinned with a child care policy - and that Abbott will be going to next election with a fantastic deal for women and couples embarking on families already legislated.

I feel grateful that the unions have fought to make her employer pay her for three months at full wage rather than living off the public purse at a minimum wage, effectively saving the taxpayer thousands of dollars.

Your virtue shines like the star of bethlehem oh Jiska the Mod.

 

[Jiska]

Right. So you believe we should raise taxes and then the taxpayer should fit the bill? I thought you righties were all against Government handouts?

What do you do for a living Power Raid?

 

[Whit3y]

what about the people that are not in a unionised workforce

oh well shitty award wages for them.

 

[Jiska]

what about the people that are not in a unionised workforce

oh well shitty award wages for them.

They get minimum wage, paid for by the taxpayer, unless the Liberals get there way and introduce further handouts from the taxpayer. So much for ending the age of entitlement.